So, Saturday afternoon, I was working at Ground Zero during the RPGA game day, and one of the players offered to bring me food back from Wendy's. I asked for 2 jr. bacon cheeseburgers, and he got 5 of the same. So, he goes to Wendy's and order 7 Jr. Bacon Cheeseburgers.
When he gets back, the order contained the following:
But out of this comes an editorial for the surprising bastion of common-sense political commentary, the Christian Science Monitor, which compares last week's disatrous offensive with Shay's Rebellion, and how it should serve as a call for a better effort of nation building in Iraq. You should read it (and the Monitor's commentary section in general. They really promote a moderate, common-sense approach in an age of insane partisanism.
I love to rant. I'm not going to lie. And now, it's time for another rant.
Back in 2003, I thought the invasion of Iraq -- with a war still being fought in Afghanistan -- was a mistake. While I did think that we would probably end up invading eventually, I thought that going through the process of trying to get weapons inspectors through, build up international support, etc., would not only help with the invasion of Iraq, but would give us time to get Afghanistan cleaned up.
However, that's not the reason why we're still stuck today. Afghanistan has completely fallen apart -- the anti-Taliban government no longer controls the country, and we don't seem to care. And who knows where Osama bin Laden has gone (is anyone still trying to capture him? Either this guy has the recurring wile, or he's actually a digital creation like Max Headroom.)
But, again, I need to talk about Iraq. Iraq needs to be cleaned up, too, and it's our mess (to be honest, things were at least orderly when Saddam was in charge. Not good, just orderly). On May 1, 2003, the President declared "mission accomplished." I said, "That's crazy talk. The mission's just starting."
After we had dismantled the Iraqi government, we had to put something in its place, and that's where we've failed miserably. We're great at warfare, but terrible at nation-building. We couldn't just leave Iraq behind -- we would have disarmed their military, kicked their police out of office, and dismantled their infrastructure, then left the people we came to liberate defenseless against a sea of hostile neighbors. We occupied Japan for 5 years after World War II, and it was fairly easy to defend, culturally homgenous, and industrialized. Iraq was none of these things, yet everyone who supported the invasion assumed we would be done in a short time.
Well, what set me off today was this article from the Associated Press on Yahoo! News. It's a brief history of the miserable failure of an effort to train Iraqi police and military. The gist is that there has never been a clear plan of what to do with rebuilding Iraq's ability to defend itself, and how well-equipped that force should be.
Why is there such a problem building an Iraqi defense force? Part of it has to do with a lack of ownership of the "nation-state" of Iraq. Like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, lines were drawn arbitrarily and a "nation-state" was imposed upon groups of people that weren't truly a nation. Most people in Iraq, think of themselves as Shiites, Sunnis, or Kurds first, and Iraqis second. (It was probably a bad idea to try to force Iraq to remain as a single state, but it was seen as a lesser evil than creating 3 mutually hostile states, especially when natural resources -- oil -- would not be evenly divided.) We had a chance to try and do some nation-building when the offensives ended, and we didn't. Now, we're stuck until a stable Iraqi military & government develops and can actually be viable, or Iraq implodes, whichever comes first.
Don't let the political rhetoric fool you this campaign season with regards to Iraq. Both sides are completely clueless. The Republicans operate under the delusion that the current strategies are working -- look at what McCain says in his speeches. The problem is that their strategies, like the army's strategies in Vietnam, are directed at destroying insurgents, not at nation-building. Do you think we would have fared as poorly in Vietnam had the government we were propping up not constantly been on the verge of complete implosion?
The Democrats don't offer any solutions, either. Obama and Hillary neither one say they're going to cut and run (though they do say that getting out of Iraq is a priority), and they don't really offer a coherent strategy. Part of that is understandable, as they don't have full access to the situation, not being presidents. But if someone, ANYONE, would say something other than "stay the course" or "get out of Iraq," I'd be a much happier panda. (If someone actually said something about adopting a strategy of nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd probably run up and kiss them.)
So, last weekend I was talking to my Mom while we were watching some election coverage on the news. The commentators were discussing Obama and Clinton's relative experience or lack thereof. My Mom was agreeing that Obama had almost no experience.
I mentioned that President Bush didn't have much more experience than Obama or Clinton when he took office. My mom kinda looked at me funny and said, "What do you think he did for the 6 years he was Governor of Texas?"
I turned my head for a second to come up with a reply, and this popped into my head:
MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin (AP) -- Gary Gygax, who co-created the fantasy game Dungeons & Dragons and helped start the role-playing phenomenon, died Tuesday morning at his home in Lake Geneva. He was 69.
He had been suffering from health problems for several years, including an abdominal aneurysm, said his wife, Gail Gygax.
Gygax and Dave Arneson developed Dungeons & Dragons in 1974 using medieval characters and mythical creatures. The game known for its oddly shaped dice became a hit, particularly among teenage boys, and eventually was turned into video games, books and movies.
Gygax always enjoyed hearing from the game's legion of devoted fans, many of whom would stop by the family's home in Lake Geneva, about 55 miles southwest of Milwaukee, his wife said. Despite his declining health, he hosted weekly games of Dungeons & Dragons as recently as January, she said.
"It really meant a lot to him to hear from people from over the years about how he helped them become a doctor, a lawyer, a policeman, what he gave them," Gygax said. "He really enjoyed that."
Dungeons & Dragons players create fictional characters and carry out their adventures with the help of complicated rules. The quintessential geek pastime, it spawned a wealth of copycat games and later inspired a whole genre of computer games that's still growing in popularity.
Funeral arrangements are pending. Besides his wife, Gygax is survived by six children
From http://gencon.com/2008/corporate/news-pr/releases/2008/2008.02.15.Press.aspx :
Gen Con Files for Chapter 11
SEATTLE (February 15, 2008) Gen Con LLC announced today that it has filed for Chapter 11 protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the State of Washington. This action became necessary as a result of significant unforeseen expenses associated with attempts to expand its core business to encompass externally licensed events. Gen Con’s flagship show, Gen Con Indy, remains a vibrant, profitable event. Gen Con Indy will take place as scheduled August 14–17, 2008, in Indianapolis, Indiana.
The protections afforded by Chapter 11 will allow Gen Con to further its efforts to address its liquidity needs, preserve value for its creditors and explore strategic alternatives for the business. “Because the fundamentals of our business are strong; and because our debt problems are challenges mostly linked to one-time events, we feel confident that the profile of our company will benefit under Chapter 11 and come out strong in the end,” said Peter D. Adkison, CEO of Gen Con.
Chapter 11 refers to the section of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code that provides for court-supervised restructuring of companies as they continue to operate normally. This proceeding is intended to help companies to become stronger financially.
Gen Con LLC will continue to operate without interruption during this process and looks forward to an expeditious resolution to the short-term challenges and the ability to focus entirely on producing Gen Con Indy, The Best Four Days in Gaming. International Gen Con events are unaffected by this situation and will continue to operate as scheduled.
I know that some of you didn't watch the Nebraska-Colorado game on Black Friday, but ABC has famous alums/fans/players introduce the starting lineups for their teams. Trey Parker and Matt Stone had the opportunity to introduce the Colorado lineups, and did it in an interesting way:
Today's USA Today has an interesting point-counterpoint on the growing movement to lower the drinking age to 18. The newspaper, citing highway deaths prevented by raising the drinking age to 21, is opposed, while the opposing view raises some interesting points that call in to question the statistics used to support the higher drinking age, and suggests possibly licensing 18-21 year olds to purchase alcohol.
Despite my persistent teetotaller status, I'm in favor of lowering the drinking age, or eliminating it altogether. Why? Because I have seen no evidence whatsoever that the typical 21-year-old is any more capable of drinking responsibly than the typical 18-year-old. Indeed, I've seen very little to support that the typical thirty-year-old is any better at drinking responsibly than an 18-year-old. And, I know that 18-year-olds are drinking anyway. They're away from home for the first time, living with little adult supervision, and trying to fit in. At least if you allowed the 18-year-olds to drink, they'll be doing it in the open. (I will grant that there are some good reasons to keep the age at no lower than 18, mainly having to do with keeping teens and tweens out of bars and clubs where they could be taken advantage of if drunk.)
That said, I don't think it will happen any time soon. Why? Because: There is a movement to raise the driving age to 18 nationally (also a terrible idea which is based on faulty assumptions about why teenagers have car accidents). Because: Generally speaking, people hate movements to legalize anything.
Let's forget for a moment that MIP enforcement puts a hefty drain on police resources, and it's usualy something that municipalities want to enforce strongly (or at least as strongly as possible). Let's forget that doing anything responsibly takes experience (the driving thing I referred to earlier -- teens have car accidents because they are inexperienced, not because their brains aren't fully developed or other crap like that). Let's forget that "underage drinking" is just a tiny part of the bigger problems of alcohol abuse and drunk driving (and the drinking age doesn't address that in any sane way). What do you have?
You still have what the USA Today opinon concedes -- that the Over 21 law has no appreciable effect on underage drinking.
Is an Over 18 law better public policy than an Over 21 law? It's certainly one that can have an appreciable outcome (teens at least still live at home, and thus their parents still have some influence, unlike 18-20 year olds who often don't). Keep in mind the 18th and 21st Amendments (huh...coincidental numbering) -- if your goal is to prevent alcohol abuse and drunk driving, prohibition seems like the better public policy until you realize that a good public policy has to be somehow enforceable.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
xyryyn's journal
